'The Bewlay Brothers' and 'Quicksand' are both bloody awful. And 'Andy Warhol' is shrill and difficult, if you're not in the mood. 'Song For Bob Dylan' has those horrible sections where he goes 'here she goes', or whatever. Difficult to like.

It's a drippy album in places. The albums either side are stronger in every sense.

'The Bewlay Brothers' and 'Quicksand' are both bloody awful. And 'Andy Warhol' is shrill and difficult, if you're not in the mood. 'Song For Bob Dylan' has those horrible sections where he goes 'here she goes', or whatever. Difficult to like.

It's a drippy album in places. The albums either side are stronger in every sense.

Interesting.

I think it's perfect but I just wondered.

"Elements of the past & future, combining to make something not quite as good as either."

'The Bewlay Brothers' and 'Quicksand' are both bloody awful. And 'Andy Warhol' is shrill and difficult, if you're not in the mood. 'Song For Bob Dylan' has those horrible sections where he goes 'here she goes', or whatever. Difficult to like.

It's a drippy album in places. The albums either side are stronger in every sense.

'The Bewlay Brothers' and 'Quicksand' are both bloody awful. And 'Andy Warhol' is shrill and difficult, if you're not in the mood. 'Song For Bob Dylan' has those horrible sections where he goes 'here she goes', or whatever. Difficult to like.

It's a drippy album in places. The albums either side are stronger in every sense.

Interesting.

I think it's perfect but I just wondered.

Do you disagree with everything I wrote? or just some things?

Pretty much everything, but not for the sake of it!

Some things that you said don't sound like criticisms to me.

It's very drippy. I love that about it. Kind of whiny & kooky & full of affectations. A kind of effeminate art school experimentation.

As far as the albums either side are concerned, I've never liked The Man Who Sold The World very much & I find Ziggy quite boring these days.

But, you know, this whole part of DB's career pales next to the later phase for me anyway.

Station to Station through to Scary Monsters is my Bowie. Plus "Outside".

All that early rock n roll stuff I find quite dull.

"Elements of the past & future, combining to make something not quite as good as either."

Sir John Coan wrote:'The Bewlay Brothers' and 'Quicksand' are both bloody awful.

Absolute fucking tripe. They're just about the best thing on there (along with "Life On Mars?". Turn your attention to "Kooks" for fucks sake.

I'm with you on this one, Pete - apart from Kooks. Ok, so it's a bit of fey nonsense stuck in the middle of the album, but when you've got Bewlay Brothers, Pretty Things, Quicksand and Queen Bitch to balance it out, it's not much of an ordeal on the ears. Admittedley, I really didn't like it on the first two or so listens, but I have grown to like it. Not much of a revelatory statement from someone who owns every Belle & Sebastian album, I know.

For the record:

Album: LowSong: Queen Bitch.

savoirfaire wrote:They are extremely cuddly, to the point where I think I was literally molested by a few of them. I completely understand how the farmer-goat relationships must happen.

'The Bewlay Brothers' and 'Quicksand' are both bloody awful. And 'Andy Warhol' is shrill and difficult, if you're not in the mood. 'Song For Bob Dylan' has those horrible sections where he goes 'here she goes', or whatever. Difficult to like.

It's a drippy album in places. The albums either side are stronger in every sense.

How can anyone not like Quicksand? Bizarre.

You come at the Queen, you best not miss.

Dr Markus wrote:Someone in your line of work usually as their own man cave aka the shed we're they can potter around fixing stuff or something don't they?

Guy E wrote:[/i]The Eno trilogy probably introduced a lot of young sprouts to [Eno and] Krautrock, but I never want to hear it. Heroes is a cool song. And then… LOOK OUT BELOW!!!

Wait, you mean to say you've never heard Low, Heroes or Lodger?

Of course, I've heard them... and probably all the albums afterwards. What I meant was that after those three with Eno (which I sort of liked back in the day and can understand fans liking) it's been a three-decade avalanche of Grande Dame doo-doo.

pig bodine wrote:*Sputter!* But he did a drum n bass album! How can it all be crap!

Let U be the set of all united sets, K be the set of the kids and D be the set of things divided.Then it follows that ∀ k ∈ K: K ∈ U ⇒ k ∉ D

yomptepi wrote:I think MWSTW is the poorest of the early Bowie albums. The songs are thin and stretched. Lyrically it is dull and cliched. I dislike the rock/blues sound, and I think Ronson fails to deliver in the guitar hero role.

There. I've said it.

100% correct. Bowie sounds lost on it. It was an ill fated attempt by Ronson to impose a prog -metal direction. Thankfully it was abandoned on the next album otherwise we wouldn't be talking of Bowie today, other than perhaps as a quirkily interesting oddball artist from the sixties.

Well I disagree 100%.

TMWSTW, besides being his best early album, marks the first emergence of the Bowie who would become a worldwide household word, much more so than the earnest acoustic folkrock of Space Oddity or the twee music hall/psych machinations of his first singles and album. It's the UR-Bowie album, and it is far from being an early stylistic experiment that was tried and dropped. Little bits of TMWSTW can be heard throughout much of his pre-Eno music. For one thing, TMWSTW is the first place that he developed his science fiction/ pansexual personna, on songs like "Width Of A Circle", "Saviour Machine" and the title track. The dense, guitar-heavy sound of the album would prove a well to which he would return again and again (the precursors to songs like "Hang On To Yourself" and "Cracked Actor" can be found right here). And as far as the "proggy" "Width Of A Circle", he would attempt multi-part rock epics again, like "Station To Station", but you heard it here first.

I also don't get the "blues-rock" accusation. There is some heavy guitar on TMWSTW, but it seems to me that Bowie and Ronson, if anything, went out of their way to avoid the usual blues cliches... there isn't a I-IV-V progression anywhere here, and the guitar pyrotechnics sound more like a late-period psychedelic freakout than like da blooz. If you want to hear Bowie doing bluesrock, look no further than "Jean Genie" or "Diamond Dogs".

I have a lot of respect for both of you guys, but I think you really missed the boat on this one.

Let U be the set of all united sets, K be the set of the kids and D be the set of things divided.Then it follows that ∀ k ∈ K: K ∈ U ⇒ k ∉ D

El Modernisto wrote:Well I don't listen to Bowie all that often these days as it's so easy to get burned out on your old favourites, but anyway I've been blasting out this song this evening. And it still hits me with an incredible force. What a journey it takes you on! From its icy beginnings, all autobahns and sodium lights to its final triumphant skewed rock n' roll. The instrumental break beginning 7.36 must be one of the most exhilarating in all of music; Earl Slick, who never gets mentioned much when one talks of Bowie's guitarists, does some amazing work here. The track isn't just one of these epics where they stick a load of things together, but it actually works as a thematic whole as Bowie comes back from some kind of spiritual void to reclaim life again. Great stuff!

Let U be the set of all united sets, K be the set of the kids and D be the set of things divided.Then it follows that ∀ k ∈ K: K ∈ U ⇒ k ∉ D